2. The circumstances can be favorable or taken into account to the Defendant, such as: (a) the Defendant’s confession and seriously against the instant crime; (b) the F/Gun election candidates E, which was related to the Defendant’s instant public opinion poll, did not go out to the 6th local local election that was implemented on June 4, 2014; and (c) the result of the instant public opinion poll does not affect the election; and (d) the Defendant has no criminal power to impose a fine exceeding the fine for the same kind of crime.

However, on the other hand, the public opinion poll is in a position to clearly recognize that the process or result of the public opinion poll is likely to cause the electors to open up the prejudice, that it is highly likely to impede the fairness of election by interfering with the free decision-making by the electors, that the career of the E candidates is reduced to two, without complying with the explicit direction of the election commission, and that if the public opinion poll is conducted in an election as the operator of the public opinion poll institution, it is difficult to regard the Defendant as simple loss or mistake, and that the Defendant committed the instant crime, even if there was the history of punishment for the same kind of crime, it is necessary to punish the Defendant significantly equivalent to his responsibility, in light of the fact that it is difficult to regard the Defendant as simple loss or mistake, and that the Defendant committed the instant crime.

In light of the aforementioned various circumstances, there is no change in the circumstances that would be different from the lower court’s punishment. In addition, comprehensively taking account of the following: the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive or background of the crime, means and method of the crime, details and consequence of the crime, etc., the sentencing conditions indicated in the record, such as the circumstances after the crime.